RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has won a second victory in a legal dispute over the SPFL’s £8 million sponsorship deal with online car retailer cinch. The businessman’s company, Park’s of Hami…
www.thescottishsun.co.uk
Rangers chairman Douglas Park claims second victory in legal dispute over SPFL’s £8m cinch sponsorship
RANGERS chairman Douglas Park has won a second victory in a legal dispute over the SPFL’s £8 million sponsorship deal with online car retailer cinch.
The businessman’s company, Park’s of Hamilton, obtained an interim interdict to prevent the SFA proceeding with an arbitration process involving
Rangers, the SPFL and cinch.
Rangers chairman Douglas Park, of Park's of Hamilton
The Scottish champions are
currently refusing to allow cinch’s branding on team shirts or an advertising boards.
Mr Park believes that the deal struck by the SPFL breaches a commercial agreement which has been made between his firm, Parks of Hamilton, and Rangers.
The SPFL have referred the matter for arbitration to the SFA.
On Wednesday, lawyers for the SFA addressed the Inner House of the Court of Session - Scotland’s highest civil appeal court.
The SFA’s legal team told judges Lord Carloway, Lord Pentland and Lord Woolman that the decision to grant the interim interdict was incorrect.
Lawyers for the SFA believed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a place in the arbitration process because it wasn’t a member of the SPFL.
Parks of Hamilton’s legal team told the court that the decision to grant interim interdict was made correctly and that the SPFL’s own rules entitled Rangers to refuse to display cinch’s’ branding.
They also argued that Parks of Hamilton should have a role in the arbitration process.
After hearing the submissions, the judges agreed with the submissions made by Parks of Hamilton and refused to overturn the lower court’s decision.
Lord Carloway, who as Lord President is Scotland’s most senior judge, ordered the SFA to pay Parks of Hamilton’s legal bill for the hearing - the sum which will be paid is not known.
Earlier in the year, a Park’s spokesperson welcomed the court’s decision to grant the interim interdict saying that the SFA had no other option but to involve it in the arbitration process.
The spokesperson added: “We can confirm that Park’s of Hamilton has been successfully granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, to prevent the SFA from proceeding with its arbitration process in relation to the sponsorship of the SPFL.
“For the purposes of Park's interim interdict application, the Court considered that the failure to include Park's went against the SFA's own rules.
“This ruling now prevents the SFA from proceeding with an arbitration process without Park’s of Hamilton being involved.”
At another hearing in the case, the SPFL’s lawyer, Lord Keen of Elie QC told the court that bosses at Rangers had spoken to cinch about renaming the club’s stadium ‘the cinch Ibrox stadium.’
However, a spokesman at the club said no negotiations took place.
On Wednesday, advocate Garry Borland QC, who is acting for the SFA, said it was wrong for interim interdict to be granted.
He said that laws surrounding arbitration showed that Parks of Hamilton shouldn’t have a role in the process.
He added: “In the present context Rangers Football Club Ltd are members of the SPFL and they are therefore required by virtue of article 196 to comply with the SPFL rules.
“The petitioner, Parks of Hamilton, is of course not a member of the SPFL and is hence is under no obligation to comply with the SPFL rules.
“Membership of the league will mean the clubs will have to be bound to comply with certain things including the articles of the SFA.
“Parks of Hamilton is not subject to or bound by those rules. It follows that Parks of Hamilton is not party to contract of the dispute referred to in the arbitration.”
Gavin MacColl QC, for Parks and Hamilton, said that the commercial issues brought up by the matter meant that it was only right for the company to participate in the arbitration process.
He said that the SPFL’s own rules show that Rangers is correct not to allow cinch branding at Ibrox.
He added: “An individual club that is a member of the SPFL does not require to comply with overarching contracts entered into by the SPFL with advertisers, if to do so were to place the individual club into breach of prior contractual obligations.
“In these circumstances, the commercial reality of this is that from the petitioner’s perspective and any objective perspective - is that the dispute is something best resolved with all of the parties that have a clear interest participating in that process and being bounded by that process and avoiding the possibility of the sort of divergent views and divergent orders that could be made if one process having taken place between Rangers and the SPFL alone the petitioner here is sought to go to court to vindicate its own contractual position and other parties such as cinch are forced to take similar steps - that sort of approach makes very little commercial sense.”
Announcing the court’s decision, Lord Carloway said he and his colleagues would issue a written judgement explaining their reasoning.
He added: “We will give our reasons in writing in early course - hopefully within the next week or so.
“But we are satisfied… that there is no reason upon which we can reverse the Lord Ordinary’ decision and we will refuse the reclaiming motion.”
Keep up to date with ALL the latest news and transfers at the Scottish Sun football page
Scots tot takes first steps to Rangers songs while watching TV